Typically - it's very all encompassing and grand while at the same time being very light on detail isn't it. And at almost 1000000 square kilometres it's a scary proposition when they are suggesting they'd like the plan to cover the - protection of seafloor features (e.g. seamounts, atolls, plateaus, deep sea plains and canyons) and associated ecological processes and biodiversity across a range
of depths
What's that mean exactly? Also I see there that it said there is no plan to establish a large no take zone. I heard the other day it was planned for it to be a no take zone?
It's definitely scary for fishing as a whole - the green zone process is one where they continually nibble away, taking a bit here and a bit there - it's enough to draw a few heated responses but it's not enough to get everyone up in arms as a whole. This doesn't take that approach, rather it's using the distance from the mainland factor to lull the majority of people into a sense of "oh well, doesn't worry me". I can see the day coming where there is going to be very few places left for people to recreationally fish. It's an issue, and an emotive one - the problem is the majority of fisher people are too laconic to do anything about it where as the environmental groups are passionate, well funded and consequently far more capable of pushing political and popular opinion.
